Noelle Crasto1,2, Abirami Kirubarajan3, Dafna Sussman4,5,6,7,8. 1. Department of Electrical, Computer, and Biomedical Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada. 2. Institute for Biomedical Engineering, Science and Technology (iBEST) at Ryerson University and St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, M5B 1T8, Canada. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L8, Canada. 4. Department of Electrical, Computer, and Biomedical Engineering, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada. dafna.sussman@ryerson.ca. 5. Institute for Biomedical Engineering, Science and Technology (iBEST) at Ryerson University and St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, M5B 1T8, Canada. dafna.sussman@ryerson.ca. 6. The Keenan Research Centre for Biomedical Science, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, M5B 1T8, Canada. dafna.sussman@ryerson.ca. 7. Department of Biomedical Physics, Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada. dafna.sussman@ryerson.ca. 8. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, M5S 1A8, Canada. dafna.sussman@ryerson.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide a systematic review of available brain MRI phantoms for comparison of structural and functional characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Phantoms were identified from a literature search using two databases including Google Scholar and PubMed. Narrow inclusion criteria were followed for identification of only tissue-mimicking MRI phantoms excluding digital, computational, or numerical phantoms. Assessment criteria for the identified phantoms was based on three categories being anatomical accuracy, tissue-mimicking materials, and exhibiting relaxation times approximating in-vivo tissues. The available features and uses of each phantom were reported and discussed using the assessment criteria. RESULTS: Ten phantoms were identified after screening; each proposed phantom was then summarized in a table (Table 2). Significant features and characteristics were shown in the comparisons of phantom type in each category, being anthropomorphic vs. traditional phantoms. Anthropomorphic phantoms had more anatomically accurate features than traditional phantoms. On the other hand, traditional phantoms commonly used effective tissue-mimicking materials and accurate electromagnetic properties. DISCUSSION: The findings provide an overview of the different proposed tissue-mimicking MRI brain phantoms available. Various uses and features are highlighted by comparing criteria such as anatomical accuracy, tissue-mimicking material, and electromagnetic properties. Tissue-mimicking MRI phantoms are an extremely useful tool for researchers and clinicians. Future applications include personalized phantom technology and validation of MR imaging and segmentation methods.
OBJECTIVE: To provide a systematic review of available brain MRI phantoms for comparison of structural and functional characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Phantoms were identified from a literature search using two databases including Google Scholar and PubMed. Narrow inclusion criteria were followed for identification of only tissue-mimicking MRI phantoms excluding digital, computational, or numerical phantoms. Assessment criteria for the identified phantoms was based on three categories being anatomical accuracy, tissue-mimicking materials, and exhibiting relaxation times approximating in-vivo tissues. The available features and uses of each phantom were reported and discussed using the assessment criteria. RESULTS: Ten phantoms were identified after screening; each proposed phantom was then summarized in a table (Table 2). Significant features and characteristics were shown in the comparisons of phantom type in each category, being anthropomorphic vs. traditional phantoms. Anthropomorphic phantoms had more anatomically accurate features than traditional phantoms. On the other hand, traditional phantoms commonly used effective tissue-mimicking materials and accurate electromagnetic properties. DISCUSSION: The findings provide an overview of the different proposed tissue-mimicking MRI brain phantoms available. Various uses and features are highlighted by comparing criteria such as anatomical accuracy, tissue-mimicking material, and electromagnetic properties. Tissue-mimicking MRI phantoms are an extremely useful tool for researchers and clinicians. Future applications include personalized phantom technology and validation of MR imaging and segmentation methods.
Authors: Kathryn E Keenan; Maureen Ainslie; Alex J Barker; Michael A Boss; Kim M Cecil; Cecil Charles; Thomas L Chenevert; Larry Clarke; Jeffrey L Evelhoch; Paul Finn; Daniel Gembris; Jeffrey L Gunter; Derek L G Hill; Clifford R Jack; Edward F Jackson; Guoying Liu; Stephen E Russek; Samir D Sharma; Michael Steckner; Karl F Stupic; Joshua D Trzasko; Chun Yuan; Jie Zheng Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Amgad Droby; Carsten Lukas; Anne Schänzer; Isabella Spiwoks-Becker; Antonio Giorgio; Ralf Gold; Nicola De Stefano; Harald Kugel; Michael Deppe; Heinz Wiendl; Sven G Meuth; Till Acker; Frauke Zipp; Ralf Deichmann Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2015-01-14 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: James F Winslow; Daniel E Hyer; Ryan F Fisher; Christopher J Tien; David E Hintenlang Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2009-08-06 Impact factor: 2.102